Polygamy by any other name?

[strappinglad]

disclaimer : I was adopted , at 4 months. I have never understood the need to find biological parents. For what purpose? Curiosity? Looking for an inheritance? Striving for a different relationship than had with the adoptive parents? Looking for a medical history? In the OP case, searching for a sperm donor is really grasping at straws. But, as was said several times in another thread....whatever floats your boat!

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Yet a man doing that with multiple wives has legal and moral obligations and may go to jail, but a man fathering many children with multiple women either as a donor or just a rogue does not. I'm trying to understand the difference.

How do we look at it from a purely genealogical POV?

[Robert F. Smith]

40 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

disclaimer : I was adopted , at 4 months. I have never understood the need to find biological parents. For what purpose? Curiosity? Looking for an inheritance? Striving for a different relationship than had with the adoptive parents? Looking for a medical history? In the OP case, searching for a sperm donor is really grasping at straws. But, as was said several times in another thread....whatever floats your boat!

In genealogy, we often input both sets of parents, the biological ones as well as the adoptive ones.  Both designations are available on Familysearch.org .

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm sure it is troubling. Would it help to know one may have 200 half-siblings spread around the world? (Not a sarcastic question.)

? Would it help such a child? 

I believe so.

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

disclaimer : I was adopted , at 4 months. I have never understood the need to find biological parents. For what purpose? ......whatever floats your boat!

Some children weep themselves to sleep some nights, that their own mother would choose to abandon them to an orphanage. Torn between being hurt to their core, and wondering whether she was/is OK.

Edited July 2, 2017 by hagoth7

[thesometimesaint]

She knew she couldn't take care of you. She wanted you to have the best possible chance in this world.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

? Would it help such a child? 

I believe so.

In what way?

 

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Some children weep themselves to sleep some nights, that their own mother would choose to abandon them to an orphanage. Torn between being hurt to their core, and wondering whether she was/is OK.

Do children of donors experience the same emotion?

 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How do we look at it from a purely genealogical POV?

It's a puzzlement. 

[hagoth7]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

She knew she couldn't take care of you. She wanted you to have the best possible chance in this world.

? Not quite sure who you're speaking to.

If intended for me, your message is in essence what I have repeatedly relayed. 

Edited July 2, 2017 by hagoth7

[strappinglad]

He was likely speaking to me. He put the best face on it. For whatever reason I was put up for adoption, I am very grateful for my childhood and upbringing at the hands of loving parents.

[bcuzbcuz]

20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Does the donor have any legal obligations?

In Scandanavia, yes. A donor accepts the legal and financial support for any child that results from a sperm donation. As to the relationship with the woman (women) that accept sperm donation, there is none. If American law follows such strict defintions, I have no idea. 

[Bernard Gui]

27 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

In Scandanavia, yes. A donor accepts the legal and financial support for any child that results from a sperm donation. As to the relationship with the woman (women) that accept sperm donation, there is none. If American law follows such strict defintions, I have no idea. 

Well, Googling this has been interesting, to say the least. The Vikings used to have to go to you on boats to propagate. Now UPS does the job for them. 

Quote

In most states a “true” donor automatically gives up his rights as any sort of parent. "True donors" are individuals that have the insemination process done through a licensed doctor. Most state laws that offer this protection are clear that if the donor is not the mother’s husband, then:

• The donor has no rights, obligations or interest with the child born as a result of the artificial insemination; and
• The child born as a result of the artificial insemination has no right, obligation or interest with the donor.

Informally donatining to a woman or couple will not protect:

• You from paying child support
• The couple from your paternity
• The couple from your visitation rights

The decision to help another person create life is a noble one. Decisions about your donation may seem minor at the time, but can greatly affect the rest of your life, and the life of the child. In a field of law as volatile as this one, it is wise to contact a family law lawyer specializing in these sorts of arrangements.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/sperm-donor-parental-rightsobligations.html

I have a friend who has taken turns with her partner to be the mommy using artificial means. Are their daughter and son related?

How does all this relate with the Proclamation on the Family?

We will need the wisdom of Solomon to sort all this out. What a world we live in.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

Bernard, Delivery Man is a (somewhat amusing) movie that addresses some of the questions of moral responsibility for a donor. It's a comedy but makes some interesting observations. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2387559/

In the movie the donor has about 50 offspring IIRC and after a couple of them reach out to try to connect he finds great meaning in getting to know his offspring and participate in their lives.

[pogi]

On 7/1/2017 at 8:02 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Yet a man doing that with multiple wives has legal and moral obligations and may go to jail, but a man fathering many children with multiple women either as a donor or just a rogue does not. I'm trying to understand the difference.

The sperm donor is essentially putting his children up for adoption.  The father of the recipient family needs to adopt the child to have legal custody.  With a legally binding contract, the donor terminates all rights to the child.  

[hagoth7]

On 7/1/2017 at 8:02 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Yet a man doing that with multiple wives has legal and moral obligations and may go to jail, but a man fathering many children with multiple women either as a donor or just a rogue does not. I'm trying to understand the difference.

As to why one was framed by American men as lillegal and the other(s) not.

My best guess at that is:

The former (polygany) reduces the number of available American women.

The latter (donor or rogue) does not.

(Considering your questions from the mindset of American men, who are the ones typically forming such American laws.)

Thoughts?

Edited July 3, 2017 by hagoth7

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Bernard, Delivery Man is a (somewhat amusing) movie that addresses some of the questions of moral responsibility for a donor. It's a comedy but makes some interesting observations. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2387559/

In the movie the donor has about 50 offspring IIRC and after a couple of them reach out to try to connect he finds great meaning in getting to know his offspring and participate in their lives.

Sounds interesting. Thanks for the suggestion. 

[Bernard Gui]

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

The sperm donor is essentially putting his children up for adoption.  The father of the recipient family needs to adopt the child to have legal custody.  With a legally binding contract, the donor terminates all rights to the child.  

Thanks. I understand the legal things that vary from state to state. To me it's odd that the donors would want to establish some sort of "fatherly" relationship later, especially if there are potentially dozens of children. 

[Bernard Gui]

55 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

As to why one was framed by American men as lillegal and the other(s) not.

My best guess at that is:

The former (polygany) reduces the number of available American women.

The latter (donor or rogue) does not.

(Considering your questions from the mindset of American men, who are the ones typically forming such American laws.)

Thoughts?

Several professional athletes and celebrities boast of having relationships with thousands of women. Surely a few have resulted in children. These men are not sanctioned or stigmatized.  Other single individuals father or mother multiple children who depend on welfare for sustainance. These men are in essence donors, just a little more personally involved. But if a man "marries" multiple women that makes him a criminal. I'm not advocating for polygamy, just trying to figure out why some methods are laudable and some are reprehensible and illegal. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Several professional athletes and celebrities boast of having relationships with thousands of women. Surely a few have resulted in children. These men are not sanctioned or stigmatized.  Other single individuals father or mother multiple children who depend on welfare for sustainance. These men are in essence donors, just a little more personally involved. But if a man "marries" multiple women that makes him a criminal. I'm not advocating for polygamy, just trying to figure out why some methods are laudable and some are reprehensible and illegal. 

You're absolutely right about the strange double standard. Somehow it's worse to be in a committed polygamous relationship than it is to be promiscuous with multiple partners to whom there is no commitment or respect. It seems backwards to me too. In my mind, a committed relationship would always be the ideal or goal for a healthier life, even if the relationship (system) is different than what is traditional.

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. I understand the legal things that vary from state to state. To me it's odd that the donors would want to establish some sort of "fatherly" relationship later, especially if there are potentially dozens of children. 

I agree, that is weird!  I guess a relationship like that would be sort of akin to a divorced polygamous family.  Where the children have monogamous step fathers or single mothers, and maintain a relationship with the biological father. 

[hagoth7]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Several professional athletes and celebrities boast of having relationships with thousands of women. Surely a few have resulted in children. These men are not sanctioned or stigmatized.  Other single individuals father or mother multiple children who depend on welfare for sustainance. These men are in essence donors, just a little more personally involved. But if a man "marries" multiple women that makes him a criminal. I'm not advocating for polygamy, just trying to figure out why some methods are [deemed] laudable and some are [deemed] reprehensible and illegal. 

I tried to answer that question. Apparently wasn't understood. 

Will try again with greater clarity. Cultural taboos are typically imposed...by whoever dominates that culture. Up until recently, Western culture was dominated by men, and therefore culture's taboos of today largely trace to their most-common preferences/concerns.

The athlete/celebrity activity that you mention doesn't create much sense of scarcity (fear/insecurity) among male voters, reporters, and lawmakers. Because it isn't deemed to reduce the number of women from which they or their sons might court, which is likely why it is of nominal concern to male voters/reporters/legislators.  

Polygamy, on the other hand, does create a sense of scarcity (fear/jealousy/insecurity) among male voters, reporters, and legislators. What was said and done among American males reporting/voting/legistlatng (late 1800s) speaks volumes. Such men imposed changes on Utah that, among other things, deprived women of their almost-unique right to vote.

 

Did such men think they were doing the right thing? The asnwer to that is probably yes.

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

? Not quite sure who you're speaking to.

If intended for me, your message is in essence what I have repeatedly relayed. 

I'm agreeing.

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're absolutely right about the strange double standard. Somehow it's worse to be in a committed polygamous relationship than it is to be promiscuous with multiple partners to whom there is no commitment or respect. It seems backwards to me too. In my mind, a committed relationship would always be the ideal or goal for a healthier life, even if the relationship (system) is different than what is traditional.

Thank you. That is my question, but you expressed it better than I did.

The end result of promiscuity, serial donation, and polygamy is children by one father and multiple mothers. Why only the one is illegal escapes me. I'm open to explanations.

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/3/2017 at 9:38 AM, pogi said:

I agree, that is weird!  I guess a relationship like that would be sort of akin to a divorced polygamous family.  Where the children have monogamous step fathers or single mothers, and maintain a relationship with the biological father. 

But serial donors are anonymous, signed away such a relationship, and in most places have no parental rights or responsibilities. Turning the hearts of the resultant children to their surrogate father and the heart of the surrogate father to the progeny (and labeling it a new kind of emerging family arrangement ) seems to be a new thing, and quite odd to me. Like I said, I am a coot of the old variety.

 

Edited July 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

20 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I tried to answer that question. Apparently wasn't understood. 

Will try again with greater clarity. Cultural taboos are typically imposed...by whoever dominates that culture. Up until recently, Western culture was dominated by men, and therefore culture's taboos of today largely trace to their most-common preferences/concerns.

The athlete/celebrity activity that you mention doesn't create much sense of scarcity (fear/insecurity) among male voters, reporters, and lawmakers. Because it isn't deemed to reduce the number of women from which they or their sons might court, which is likely why it is of nominal concern to male voters/reporters/legislators.  

Polygamy, on the other hand, does create a sense of scarcity (fear/jealousy/insecurity) among male voters, reporters, and legislators. What was said and done among American males reporting/voting/legistlatng (late 1800s) speaks volumes. Such men imposed changes on Utah that, among other things, deprived women of their almost-unique right to vote.

Did such men think they were doing the right thing? The asnwer to that is probably yes.

Thanks for clarifying. The earlier responses were a bit cryptic. I understand you are saying that polygamy was (is) anathema because white men in power in the late 1800s feared that its practice would result in fewer marriageable women available to them and their sons. Am I correct?

I'm trying to connect this with donor fatherhood. From what I understand, single women who want a child are the majority of donor recipients. So in your view this would not be perceived as a threat to the overall pool because they are not interested in marriage. A married couple seeking donor children also would not be perceived as a threat because it would not diminish the pool.

On the other hand promiscuity did not (does not?) diminish the pool? Among many people of that time, having a child out of wedlock stigmatized the woman or resulted in a forced marriage to hold the father responsible for is actions. Or a man might have children by a mistress or mistresses who would then most likely be undesirable for marriage by another.

How is a donor who has children with multiple women different from a polygamist, a celebrity, or a rogue?

 

 

[hagoth7]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

...The earlier responses were a bit cryptic.

My native tongue.        

(Still getting a handle on this English thing.)

 

And as a Canadian, I have apparently over-politely (or unintentionally rudely/curtly) exited most of my comments...without imposing on others a helpful summary/clarification of what I *really* meant...

...as helpfully pointed out yesterday by MFB (thank you sir). That feedback was golden. Repenting in the 11th hour. A last second hail Mary/Sariah/Deborah/Joseph towards the end zone. 

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand you are saying that polygamy was (is) anathema because white men in power in the late 1800s feared that its practice would result in fewer marriageable women available to them and their sons. Am I correct?

Yes. That's my best current guesstimate, based on what was published and done back then, although I don't do time-travelling mind reading of 1800's people as a side job. Willing to be corrected on that today, if better information is available.

That said, I'm certain many men believed they truly were defending Utah women by outlawing polygamy. Most likely not realizing that such an act was also removing their right to vote. (Most of us believe our intent is noble, whether we acknowledge making the occasional misstep or not.)

Edited July 4, 2017 by hagoth7